FranciP  E.  Gip-ot 


The  Message  of  Mopes  and  Modem 
Higher  Criticism 


:%, 


^ii^JI5'^'P^ 


:m- 


^ 


Ifc 


'^jTf  Jiafi^m 


BSI225 
.4.&46 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  MOSES 

AND 

MODERN  HIGHER  CRITICISM 


A   LECTURE 

Given  in  Houston  Hall,  University  of  Pennsylvania 


BY 

Rev.  FRANCIS  E.  GIGOT,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Sacred  Scripture  in  St.  Joseph's  Seminary,   Yonkers,  iV.  T, 

Author  of  Several  Works  Introductwy  to  the  Study 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures 


New  Yoek       Cincinnati       Chicago 

BENZIGER    BROTHERS 

PrinUra  to  ike  Holy  Apostolic  See 
1915 


'ViAR   3   1910    . 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  MOSES 


AND 


MODERN  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

A   LECTURE 
Given  in  Houston  Hall,  University  of  Pennsylvania 


Rev.  FRANCIS  E.  GIGOT,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Sacred  ScHpture  in  St.  Joseph's  Seminary,   Tonkers,  if.  Y. 

Author  of  Several  Works  Introductory  to  the  Study 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures 


New  York       Cincinnati       Chicago 

BENZIGER    BROTHERS 

Printert  to  the  Holy  Apostolic  See 
1915 


u 


f  mprimi  potest* 


REMIGIUS  LAFORT,  S.T.D., 

Librorum. Censor. 


Pbbkskill,  N.  T.,  March  25,  1915. 


Copyright,  1915,  by  Bbnziger  Bbothers 


PREFACE 


THE  present  Lecture  was  delivered  in  Hous- 
ton Hall,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  on 
March  17th,  1915.  It  forms  part  of  the  Free 
Public  Lectures  given  there  under  the  auspices 
of  The  Catholic  Students'  Organization  Commit- 
tee of  that  University.  Prepared  for  a  general 
audience,  the  Lecture  avoids  as  far  as  possible 
technical  details  and  linguistic  discussions,  and 
lays  no  claim  to  be  considered  as  a  treatment  of 
all  the  various  aspects  presented  by  the  important 
topic  with  which  it  deals.  Within  its  small  com- 
pass, however,  it  supplies  the  information  re- 
quired for  an  accurate  comprehension  of  the 
main  points  at  issue  between  the  traditional  posi- 
tion concerning  the  message  of  Moses  and  the 
theories  of  Modern  Higher  Criticism.  It  like- 
wise sets  forth  in  a  brief,  yet  it  is  hoped  sufficient, 
manner  the  principal  grounds  which  can  be  ap- 
pealed to  in  order  to  vindicate  the  correctness  of 
Jewish     and     Christian     tradition     concerning 


4  PREFACE 

Moses'  literary  work  and  monotheistic  message. 
It  is  the  Author's  intention  at  some  future  time 
to  deal  fully  with  the  particular  points  which  he 
has  simply  touched  upon  in  short  footnotes. 
Meantime,  the  lecture  is  published  at  the  request 
of  persons  deeply  interested  in  the  topic  under 
discussion,  who  are  persuaded  that  its  publication 
will  prove  useful  to  theological  students  and  to 
general  readers. 

St.  Joseph's  Seminaet, 
March  24,  1916. 


SUMMARY 


INTRODUCTION 

The  Traditional  View  concerning  Moses.  Its  B ejection 
by  Modern  Higher  Criticism.  The  New  Theories  widely 
received,  yet  untenable.  General  Contention  of  the  Higher 
Critics. 

1st  part 

The  Literary  Contents  of  the  Pentateuch  Investigated. 
The  Four  Documents  admitted  by  Higher  Criticism: 
Two  Prophetical  Narratives;  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy; 
The  Priestly  Writing.  Deuteronomy  and  the  Priestly 
Writing  can  be  proved  as  from  Moses'  pen.  The  other  Two 
Documents  were  utilized  by  Israel's  Lawgiver.  Hence, 
all  the  Literary  Contents  can  be  traced  back  to  Moses. 

IInd  part 

The  Legislative  Contents  of  the  Pentateuch  Examined. 
Views  of  the  Higher  Critics  concerning  Order  and  Date  of 
the  Pentateuchal  Codes.  The  Critical  Theories  not  neces- 
sary to  account  for  the  Development  of  Hebrew  Legis- 
lation. The  Critical  Theories  run  counter  to  fully-ascer- 
tained Facts.  Some  General  Objections  of  the  Higher 
Critics  disposed  of. 

general  conclusion 
5 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND 
MODERN  HIGHER  CRITICISM 


IN  Jewish  and  Christian  circles  the  name  of 
Moses  is  a  blessed  and  household  word.  It 
denotes  to  the  rank  and  file  of  believers  the  great 
liberator  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  the  prophetical 
leader  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  through  the  Wil- 
derness of  Sinai  to  the  border  of  Chanaan,  the 
monotheistic  lawgiver  of  his  race,  and  the  in- 
sjaired  writer  of  the  Pentateuch  or  first  five  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Such  was  Moses  accord- 
ing to  the  constant  tradition  of  ages  which  we 
find  reflected  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Law 
and  in  those  of  the  New. 

Venerable  and  authoritative  as  this  tradition 
may  appear  to  us,  its  testimony  is  more  and  more 
confidently  declared  null  and  void  by  the  thor- 
ough-going advocates  of  the  Modern  Higher 
Criticism.  Such  testimony,  these  men  boldly  as- 
sert, has  been  fully  tested  by  a  host  of  able  and 

7 


8      MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

independent  scholars  for  upwards  of  a  century, 
and  its  value  is  nowadays  admitted  only  by 
biassed  or  by  blind  followers  of  Ecclesiastical 
authority.  Let  anyone,  they  further  tell  us, 
examine  for  himself  the  new  theories  which  have 
been  gradually  framed  to  supersede  the  old  tra- 
ditional authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  he 
will  readily  see  that,  while  these  theories  account 
for  the  facts  on  which  they  rest,  the  traditional 
view  of  Moses'  message  and  work  must  be  re- 
garded as  decidedly  untenable.^ 

Such  is  the  general  contention  of  the  Modern 
Higher  Critics,  such  also  is  the  direct  challenge 
with  which  they  confront  the  defenders  of  the 
traditional  position.  To  go  against  this  conten- 
tion and  to  take  up  this  challenge,  one  needs  in- 
deed a  stout  heart  at  the  present  day.  Promi- 
nent scholars  all  over  the  world  have  become  the 
stanch  advocates  of  the  new  theories,^  and  works 
of  all  sizes  and  purposes  have  placed  their  views 

1  For  instance,  C.  F.  Burney  writes :  "This  latter  hypothesis 
(i.  e.  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory),  with  the  reconstruction  which 
it  involves  of  our  view  of  the  development  of  Israel's  religion 
after  760  B.  C,  may  now  be  regarded  as  proved  up  to  the  hilt 
for  any  thinking  and  unprejudiced  man  who  is  capable  of  esti- 
mating for  himself  the  character  and  value  of  the  evidence." 
(Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  April,  1908,  p.  321.) 

2Cf.  C.  A.  Briggs,  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  p. 
148  sq.   (N.  Y.,  1893.) 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM      9 

within  reach  of  the  young  and  of  the  old.  His- 
tories of  the  Old  Testament  and  Histories  of  the 
Religion  of  Israel  have  been  written  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  old  traditional  position  is  for- 
ever disproved,  and  in  all  such  writings  the  most 
radical  and  most  irreligious  theories  are  pro- 
pounded as  the  undoubted  truth  concerning  the 
origin  and  development  of  Israel's  history  and 
religion.^  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  to  de- 
fend the  cause  of  tradition  is  to  defend  a  lost 
cause,  and  that  to  assail  the  conclusions  of  Mod- 
ern Higher  Criticism  concerning  the  Message  of 
Moses  is  to  waste  time  and  energy.  And  yet,  to 
the  mind  of  the  present  Lecturer  there  is  con- 
viction that  such  is  not  really  the  case.  Nay  more, 
to  his  mind  there  is  no  doubt  that  a  dispassion- 
ate study  of  the  principal  positions  of  the  High- 
er Critics  proves  such  positions  to  be  untenable, 
and  that  the  careful  gathering  up  of  whatever 
elements  of  truth  may  be  recognized  in  the  new 
theories  but  strengthens  the  traditional  view 
concerning  the  person  and  message  of  Moses. 

3  Of  this  description  are:  H.  Oort  and  I.  Hookyaas,  The  Bible 
for  Learners,  tr.  (Boston,  1888);  C.  H.  Toj,  The  History  of  the 
Religion  of  Israel  (Boston,  1894);  H.  P.  Smith,  Old  Test.  History 
(N.  Y.,  1903);  The  Religion  of  Israel  (N.  Y.,  1914);  L.  B.  Paton, 
The  Early  Religion  of  Israel  (Boston,  1910);  Morris  Jastrow, 
Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Traditions  (N.  Y.,  1914);  J.  P.  Peters, 
The  Religion  of  the  Hebrews   (Boston,  1914). 


10    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

The  beginning  of  Modern  Higher  Criticism  is 
usually  referred  to  the  second  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  In  those  early  days  of  criti- 
cal research  the  traditional  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  accepted  by  the  French  Cathohc 
physician  Jean  Astruc  in  his  epoch-making 
"Conjectures  sur  les  Memoires  originaux  dont 
il  paroit  que  Moyse  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le 
Livre  de  la  Genese."  (Brussels,  1753.)  It  was 
likewise  accepted  by  the  German  Protestant  pro- 
fessor J.  G.  Eichhorn  in  his  valuable  "Einleitung 
in  das  Alte  Testament/"*  in  which  the  name 
"Higher  Criticism"  is  used  for  the  first  time  to 
denote  the  investigation  of  the  literary  and  his- 
torical contents  of  the  sacred  writings.  But 
since  then  Higher  Criticism  has  passed  through 
several  stages  which  gradually  led  it  up  to  its 
present  thorough  denial  of  Moses'  literary  work 
and  monotheistic  message.  Tradition  indeed 
survives  bearing  the  same  distinct  witness  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  first  five  books  of  Holy 
Writ.  But  this  tradition,  Modern  Higher  Critics 
assert  with  one  accord,  is  disproved  by  both  the 
hterary  and  the  historical  analysis  of  the  contents 
of  the  Pentateuch  itself. 

4Cf.  Eichhorn's  Einleitung,  edition  of  1790. 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM     11 
I 

On  the  basis  of  the  literary  analysis  of  these 
contents,  they  all  claim  that  the  only  way  to 
account  for  the  differences  in  vocabulary, 
style,  manner  of  representation,  etc.,  noticeable  in 
the  Pentateuch,  is  by  regarding  the  work  as  a 
compilation  from  four  various  documents  all  later 
than  the  time  of  Moses.  Of  course,  if  such  be 
the  only  way  to  account  for  the  literary  features 
exhibited  by  the  contents  of  our  Pentateuch,  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  work  must  be  given  up. 
But  is  this  really  the  case?  Is  it  true  that  the 
four  documents  accepted  by  Modern  Higher  Crit- 
icism— ^viz.  two  parallel  prophetical  narratives, 
the  oratorical  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the 
lawyer-like  Priestly  Writing — must  be  assigned 
to  different  authors  who  hved  between  850  B.  C. 
and  some  time  after  the  return  from  the  Baby- 
Ionian  Exile?  Our  distinct  answer  is  that  another 
account  of  the  literary  features  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  one  consistent  with  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  its  contents,  can  and  should  be  maintained. 

On  the  basis  of  these  literary  features  there 
is  no  need  of  ascribing,  as  Higher  Critics  do,  a 
different  date  and  a  different  authorship  to  the 
Priestly  Writing  and  to  our  Book  of  Deuter- 


12    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

onomy.  Both  are  in  equally  good,  and  by  no 
means  late,  Hebrew/  The  lawyer-like  style  of 
the  Priestly  Writing  and  the  oratorical  language 
of  Deuteronomy  are  compatible  with  unity  of 
authorship,  as  they  undoubtedly  were  under  the 
pen  of  Noah  Webster,  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  and 
of  other  writers.  That  Moses  was  the  author  of 
the  rhetorical  discourses  found  in  Deuteronomy 
is  expressly  affirmed  by  that  book,  and  from  the 
point  of  view  of  style,  there  is  no  positive  reason 
to  deny  it.  As  far  as  we  know,  Moses,  "in- 
structed in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
mighty  in  words"  (Acts  vii.  22) ,  was  able  to  make 
the  direct  and  impassioned  addresses  recorded  in 
that  book,  and  the  tendency  to  redundancy  and 
to  repetition  of  stereotyped  phrases  which  ap- 
pears in  their  style  is  exactly  what  we  should  ex- 
pect from  an  early  effort  at  public  oratory  in  Is- 
rael. That  the  same  orator,  Moses,  used  also, 
when  required,  a  statistical  and  legal  language 

sCf.  A.  Dillmann,  Genesis,  tr.,  vol.  1,  p.  7. — According  to  H. 
L.  Strack  (art.  Pentateuch,  in  Schaff-Herzog  Ency.  of  Religious 
Knowl.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  1795,  N.  Y.,  1887),  "The  language  of  P  (i.  e. 
the  Priestly  Writing)  deserves  attention  as  an  evidence  for  its 
antiquity.  V.  Ryssel  in  his  careful  treatise  on  the  language  of 
P  (De  Elohistae  Pentateuchici  Sermone,  Leipsig,  1878)  reaches 
results  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  of  post-exilic  origin." 
Cf.  also  F.  E.  Spencer,  in  Lex  Mosaica,  p.  616  sqq. — F.  Giese- 
brecht's  view  of  P's  Aramaisms  is  rejected  by  S.  R.  Driver,  Intr. 
to  Old  Test.  Lit.,  p.  166, 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM     13 

like  that  of  the  Priestly  Writing  is  proved  by  the 
style  of  passages  directly  referred  to  him  in  the 
other  books  of  the  Pentateuch;  such  passages, 
for  instance,  as  the  list  of  Israel's  encampments 
(Numb,  xxxiii),  the  commands  to  the  children 
of  Israel  (Numb,  xxxiv) ,  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant (Exod.  xx-xxiii),  the  last  of  which  pre- 
sents appended  to  its  laws  an  exhortation  to 
faithfulness  to  God  in  genuine  Deuteronomic 
style,  and  thus  ascribes  to  Moses  both  a  legal 
and  an  oratorical  manner  of  writing.  This  is 
proved  likewise  by  the  minute  details  concern- 
ing the  Tabernacle,  the  Ark,  the  priestly  dress, 
etc.,  for,  on  the  one  hand,  they  are  expressly 
stated  to  have  been  imparted  to  Moses  by  God 
Himself,  and,  on  the  other,  their  perfect  faithful- 
ness to  the  corresponding  elements  in  Egyptian 
worship^  points  to  Moses  as  the  one  who  because 
of  his  special  training  in  Egypt  could  easily  bear 
such  details  in  mind  and  put  them  down  in  writ- 
ing. Thus,  then,  we  can  and  should  account  for 
the  literary  features  of  the  Priestly  Writing  and 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  without  giving  up 
the  traditional  authorship  of  these  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

«Cf.  W.  Smith,  The  Book  of  Moses   (London,  1868);  see  also 
R.  V.  French,  Lex  Mosaica,  p.  22  sqq.,  p.  521   (London,  1894). 


14    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

it  is  true  that  when  we  turn  next  to  the  two 
prophetical  narratives  which  are  admitted  by  the 
Higher  Critics,  we  find  ourselves  in  presence  of 
two  literary  sources  actually  utilized  in  the  com- 
position of  our  Pentateuch.  In  regard  to  style, 
these  narratives  do  differ  from  each  other,  they 
also  do  differ  from  those  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  should  be  re- 
ferred to  Moses'  own  pen.  Nevertheless,  the  lit- 
erary features  of  these  narratives  afford  no  rea- 
son for  thinking  that  their  contents  originated 
centuries  after  Moses'  death, ^  and  that  conse- 
quently they  were  not  utilized  by  him  in  compos- 
ing our  Pentateuch.  We  have  in  the  Book  of 
Numbers  (xi.  25  sqq.)  a  distinct  proof  that 
there  were  prophets  among  the  multitudes  which 
had  been  freed  from  Egypt,  and  that  Moses  him- 
self knew  of  the  existence  of  such  prophets  and 
approved  of  their  spirit.  We  have  no  need, 
therefore,  of  referring  ourselves  to  centuries  after 
Moses  to  account  for  the  prophetical  tone  of  the 

f  J  and  E  (i.  e.  the  two  prophetical  narratives)  are  ascribed  by 
many  Critics  to  prophets  of  Juda  and  Ephraim  respectively. 
Kuenen,  Reuss,  Schrader,  etc.,  regard  them  both  as  of  Eph- 
raimitic  origin.  In  fact,  neither  J  nor  E  has  any  specific  allusion 
to  the  divided  kingdom,  and  this  is  very  unnatural  if  either  was 
composed  after  the  disruption  of  Solomon's  empire,  as  Critics 
affirm.  (Cf.  J.  Skinner,  Intern.  Critical  Commentary,  Genesis,  p. 
Uv  sq.,  N.  Y.,  1910). 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM     15 

two  literary  sources  in  question.  Moses,  himself  a 
prophet,  knew  how  to  write,  and  so  also  did  at 
least  some  of  the  prophets  around  him.  That  two 
of  these  in  thankfulness  to  the  God  of  their  ances- 
tors should  record  His  deeds  of  mercy  toward  the 
patriarchs  of  old,  and  chronicle  His  present  inter- 
ventions on  behalf  of  the  people  of  His  choice, 
is  readily  intelligible.  In  their  eyes  the  God 
who  had  but  lately  redeemed  Israel  from  Egypt 
was  no  other  than  the  God  who  from  of  old  had 
preordained  all  things  in  behalf  of  His  elect 
people,  and  who,  at  sundry  times,  had  promised 
to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  that  their  pos- 
terity would  inherit  the  land  of  Chanaan.  With 
a  watchful  Providence  He  had  guided  the  wan- 
dering steps  of  these  great  ancestors  of  the  He- 
brew race,  and  with  a  strong  arm  and  an  out- 
stretched hand  He  had  in  due  time  proceeded 
to  fulfil  His  solemn  promises  to  them.  The 
present  generation  of  their  descendants  had,  in- 
deed, by  its  apostasy  at  the  foot  of  Sinai,  proved 
unworthy  of  witnessing  that  fulfilment.  But 
such  fulfilment  could  not  be  frustrated,  and  was 
simply  delayed  for  a  short  while.  God's  timely 
help  under  the  trying  circumstances  of  the  jour- 
ney of  the  Exodus  and  of  the  wanderings  in  the 
Wilderness  could  be  easily  pointed  out  as  an  un- 


16    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

questionable  proof  of  this.  And  so  one  can 
readily  understand  how  two  prophets  in  the  com- 
pany of  Moses  would  feel  prompted  to  write,  for 
the  instruction  and  encouragement  of  their  fel- 
low Hebrews,  the  two  narratives  which  we  find 
embodied  in  our  Pentateuch.  Amidst  natural 
differences  of  expression,  their  descriptions  of  the 
journey  of  the  Exodus,  their  references  to  places, 
their  allusions  to  the  productions  of  the  Wilder- 
ness, etc.,  would  be  most  accurate,  as  they  have 
been  verified  by  numerous  travellers  in  the 
course  of  the  nineteenth  century.^  That  the 
Priestly  Writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  no  other  than 
Moses,^  as  we  have  seen,  was  actually  acquainted 
with  such  literary  works  is  admitted  by  nearly 
every  critic  of  our  day.  That  he  utilized  them, 
adding  to  them,  fitting  them  into  his  general 
scheme  of  history  and  legislation,  best  accounts, 
among  other  things,  for  the  two  following  facts : 
(1)  their  contents  which  bear  on  events  falling 
within  Moses*  lifetime  are  more  closely  fused 

8Cf.  S.  C.  Bartlett,  From  Egypt  to  Palestine  (N.  Y.,  1879); 
F.  E.  Gigot,  Special  Introd.  to  the  Old  Test.,  vol.  I,  p.  67  sqq. 
(N.  Y.,  1901). 

9  It  is  confirmatory  of  this  view,  that  after  Exodus  "the  inde- 
pendent main  stock  of  the  Priestly  Code  more  and  more  gives 
way  to  later  additions,  and  ceases  altogether,  it  appears,  at  the 
death  of  Moses."  (Wellhausen,  quoted  by  J.  Orr,  Problem  of  the 
Old  Test.,  p.  340.     N.  Y.,  1906). 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    17 

with  the  contributions  by  the  Priestly  Writer 
than  are  those  which  bear  on  events  prior  to  the 
lawgiver's  time;  (2)  the  distinct  style  of  redac- 
tion of  the  same  priestly  writer  ceases  altogether 
at  the  death  of  Moses/'  We  are  thus  led  to  ad- 
mit that  Moses  himself,  the  author  of  the  Priest- 
ly Writing  and  of  Deuteronomy,  used  the  two 
prophetical  narratives  in  composing  our  Penta- 
teuch, so  that  we  can  account  for  all  the  literary 
contents  of  the  Mosaic  writings  without  depart- 
ing in  the  least  from  the  traditional  authorship 
of  the  work." 

10  "In  the  Book  of  Josue,  P  [the  Priestly  Writer]  does  not  oc- 
cupy the  regulative  position,  nor  supply  the  framework,  as  it 
does  in  the  Pentateuch."  G.  A.  Smith,  art.  Joshua,  in  Hastings, 
Bib.  Diet.  vol.  II,  p.  784.— According  to  Critics  also,  the  Deutero- 
nomic  writer  in  Josue,  is  not  simply  D,  but  D2,  i.  e.  "a  writer 
.  .  .  strongly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy"  (Driver, 
Intro,  to  Old  Test.  Liter.,  p.  104),  so  that  the  genuine  Deuteronomic 
writer  ceases  also  at  the  death  of  Moses,  a  literary  fact  which 
points  to  Moses  as  the  single  author  of  both  Deuteronomy  and  the 
Priestly  Writing.— Finally,  R.  Kittel  (Hist,  of  the  Hebrews,  tr., 
vol.  I,  p.  75  sqq.)  gives  reasons  for  regarding  D  as  the  editor  of 
J  and  E  before  they  were  combined  in  the  form  of  Wellhausen's 
JE.  (Cf.  Exod.  ix.  30  where  [in  the  Hebrew]  the  divine  names 
Jehovah,  Elohim  appear  on  Moses'  lips,  in  the  same  combined 
manner  as  in  Gen.  ii  sqq.) 

11  The  length  of  the  work  does  not  make  against  this.  la 
Egypt,  in  Moses'  time,  literature  was  the  first  and  best  of  em- 
ployments, and  the  "Great  Harris  papyrus"  which  is  133  ft. 
long  by  nearly  17  inches  broad,  goes  back  to  that  period.  (Cf. 
G.  Rawlinson,  in  "The  Pulpit  Commentary,"  Exodus,  vol.  I,  pp. 
X,  xL) 


18    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

II 

Modern  Higher  Critics,  however,  do  not  depend 
solely,  or  even  chiefly,  on  the  literary  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch  to  deny  Moses'  literary  work 
and  monotheistic  message.  They  principally  rest 
this  denial  on  their  historical  criticism  of  the 
legislative  portions  of  the  Mosaic  writings. 

These  portions  fall  naturally  into  three  sets  of 
laws  or  Codes  which  Critics  agree  in  regarding 
as  composed  in  the  following  order:  (1)  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  contained  in  the  prophetical 
narratives;  (2)  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  embod- 
ied in  our  Book  of  Deuteronomy;  and  (3)  the 
Priestly  Code,  an  integrant  part  of  the  Priestly 
Writing.  Now,  Higher  Critics  pronounce  these 
three  Codes  to  be  so  incompatible  on  vital  points, 
that  the  only  way  to  account  for  their  origin  is 
by  admitting  that  in  the  Pentateuch  we  have 
records  of  laws  laid  down  at  various  periods  of 
national  history,  and  dealing  with  radically  dif- 
ferent conditions  of  hfe.  Thus,  according  to 
them,  the  only  way  to  view  aright  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  is  by  understanding  its  enactments 
as  exactly  suited  to  the  times  of  the  Judges  and 
of  the  early  Kings  of  Israel.  In  this  first  set  of 
laws,  we  are  told,  Jehovah  is  simply  the  national 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM     19 

God  of  Israel,  in  the  same  way  as  Chemos,  for 
instance,  is  the  national  god  of  Moab;  altars  of 
earth  or  of  unhewn  stones  can  be  erected  in  vari- 
ous places ;  sacrifices  of  the  most  elementary  kind 
can  be  offered  by  anyone ;  and  the  people  lead  an 
agricultural  life  in  a  somewhat  primitive  stage 
of  civilization.     Again,  to  their  mind,  the  only 
view  to  take  of  the  second  Pentateuchal  Code, 
which  they  hold  to  be  that  of  Deuteronomy,  is 
to  regard  it  as  fitting  in  with  the  closing  years 
of  the  Hebrew  monarchy,  with  the  time  when 
King   Josias    (7th   cent.    B.    C.)    enforced   the 
enactments  of  a  book  of  the  Law  then  found  in 
the  Temple  and  no  other,  it  is  claimed,  than  the 
Deuteronomic  Code.  This,  it  is  affirmed,  is  a  new 
and  higher  Code  suited  to  a  more  advanced  age 
in  Hebrew  history.     Jehovah  is  now  conceived 
not  simply  as  the  God  of  His  people  Israel,  but 
as  the  only  one  true  God.     Henceforth,  there 
must  be  only  one  sanctuary,  one  altar.    Hence- 
forth, the  ministers  of  the  altar  in  the  Temple  are 
limited  to  the  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and 
those  who  had  ministered  as  Levites  at  the  high 
places  of  worship  different  from  Jerusalem  are 
to  be  provided  with  a  maintenance  in  a  rather 
scanty  and  precarious  manner.     Finally,  pres- 
ent day  Critics  affirm  that  the  only  right  way  to 


20    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

understand  their  third,  the  Priestly,  Code,  is  by- 
regarding  its  laws  as  suited  to  the  period  after 
the  return  from  the  Babylonian  Exile.  In  both 
this  Priestly  Code  and  this  period  of  Hebrew  his- 
tory, it  is  said,  the  one  national  concern  is  to 
organize  the  community  on  thoroughly  priestly 
lines :  the  priesthood  is  now  restricted  to  one  sin- 
gle Levitical  family,  that  of  Aaron;  the  office  of 
the  high  priest  is  invested  with  a  peculiar  sanc- 
tity; the  Levites  are  made  thoroughly  subordinate 
to  the  priests  and  are  provided  for  by  means  of 
tithes  and  cattle  and  cities  and  lands ;  the  system 
of  sacrifices  and  feasts,  now  to  culminate  in  the 
Day  of  the  Atonement,  wears  a  new  and  dis- 
tinctly national  character  and  is  protected  by  a 
most  elaborate  ritual;  there  is  no  insistence  upon 
the  one  altar  and  sanctuary  because  this  was 
already  firmly  established;  nor  any  effort  at  en- 
forcing monotheism  because  the  possibility  of 
rivalry  with  Jehovah  on  the  part  of  other  gods 
is  no  longer  thought  of. 

Plainly,  if  the  foregoing  is  a  correct  theory. 
Modern  Higher  Critics  are  justified  in  their 
thorough  denial  of  Moses'  literary  work  and 
monotheistic  message.  Evidently,  Moses  can- 
not be  the  author  of  records  of  laws  framed  in 
view  of  circumstances  all  distinctly  later  than 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    21 

his  time.  Evidently,  too,  he  is  not  the  introducer 
into  Israel  of  a  monotheism  which  gradually 
evolved  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Hebrew  na- 
tion only  centuries  after  his  death.  And  hence, 
no  less  evidently,  there  is  no  other  way  of  main- 
taining the  traditional  view  concerning  him,  save 
by  yielding  blindly  to  the  voice  of  authority. 

But  to  the  mind  of  the  present  Lecturer  there 
is  no  doubt  that  this  theory  of  the  Critics  is  not 
correct,  and  that  there  is  another  way^^  of  ac- 
counting for  the  facts  to  which  it  runs  counter, 
which  other  way  is,  moreover,  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  traditional  position. 

Of  the  three  Codes  contained  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  Book  of  the  Covenant  stands  natur- 
ally first,  not  because  of  its  superior  antiquity, 
but  because  of  its  preliminary  character.  It  is 
a  brief  body  of  regulations  intended  to  sen^e  as 
a  basis  for  the  formal  ratification  of  the  Cove- 
nant between  Jehovah  and  the  people  of  Israel. 
Accordingly,  it  lays  down  a  few  simple  and  com- 
prehensive rules,  framed  in  the  spirit  of  the  reli- 
gion of  Jehovah,  for  the  government  of  the  peo- 
ple in  their  relations  to  one  another,  and  in  their 
relation  to  God,  to  which  in  a  solemn  act  of  wor- 

12  The  following  sketch  of  it  is  mainly  from  W.  H.  Green,  The 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  144  sqq.   (N.  Y.,  1900). 


22    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

ship  they  were  soon  to  pledge  assent.  The  very 
agricultural  allusions  of  this  Code,  to  wliich  Crit- 
ics appeal  as  pointing  to  a  people  settled  in 
Chanaan,  are  in  direct  harmony  with  its  Mosaic 
origin  and  its  delivery  at  Sinai.  At  that  early 
date  both  Moses  and  the  people  under  his  guid- 
ance felt  sure  that  they  would  soon  be  settled  in 
full  possession  of  the  promised  Land,  for  neither 
he  nor  they  could  imagine  such  an  act  of  gross 
rebellion  as  that  for  which  a  lapse  of  forty  years 
to  be  spent  in  the  desert  was  actually  to  inter- 
vene. It  would  have  been  strange,  indeed,  if  the 
law  given  in  the  midst  of  such  circumstances  did 
not  look  beyond  the  desert  as  the  abode  of  the 
people,  and  took  no  note  of  what  was  in  immedi- 
ate prospect.  It  was  quite  appropriate  for  it  to 
contemplate  their  expected  life  in  Chanaan,  and 
to  give  regulations  respecting  the  fields  and  vine- 
yards and  olive-yards  which  they  were  shortly  to 
possess. 

The  second  Code  contained  in  our  Pentateuch 
likewise  appears  there  in  its  appropriate  place. 
After  the  reading  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  the  national  assent  pledged  to  its  observation, 
the  way  was  open  for  a  fuller  development  of 
the  duties  and  obligations  which  the  relation  now 
established  between  the  two  contracting  parties 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    23 

naturally  involved.  Jehovah,  as  the  covenant 
God  of  Israel,  was  henceforth  to  take  up 
His  abode  in  the  midst  of  His  people.  This 
made  it  necessary  that  detailed  instructions 
should  be  given,  for  which  there  was  no  occa- 
sion before,  respecting  the  sacred  Tabernacle,  the 
sacrifices  to  be  performed  in  it,  the  officiating 
priesthood,  the  set  times  for  special  solemnities, 
and  in  general  the  entire  ritual  to  be  observed 
by  a  holy  people  for  the  expression  and  per- 
petuation of  their  communion  with  a  holy  God. 
All  this  was  embodied  in  the  Priestly  Code,  In 
wliich  the  scanty  general  provisions  of  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  were  replaced  by  a  vastly  ex- 
panded and  minutely  specified  ceremonial.  In- 
tricate and  minute  as  this  ritual  Law  may  appear 
to  us,  it  was  not  an  altogether  new  thing  to  a 
people  long  familiar  with  the  parallel  ritual  in 
Egyptian  worship;  nor  was  it  a  development 
implying  the  lapse  of  ages  with  an  altered  civiliza- 
tion and  a  corresponding  advance  of  the  popular 
notions  of  the  divine  Being  and  of  the  homage 
which  should  be  paid  to  Him. 

Finally,  the  Pentateuch  rightly  ascribes  to  the 
Deuteronomic  Code  the  third  place  in  its  sets 
of  Hebrew  laws.  At  the  close  of  the  forty  years* 
Wandering,  when  the  great  legislator  was  about 


24    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

to  die,  he  naturally  felt  it  his  duty  to  exhort  to 
faithfulness  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  their  God, 
those  whom  he  long  knew  to  be  a  rebellious 
people.  In  view  of  this  he  recapitulated  in  the 
hearing  of  Israel  the  laws  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  with  such  modifications  and  additions 
as  were  suggested  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
present,  the  experiences  of  the  past,  and  the  pros- 
pects of  the  immediate  future.  "These  testa- 
mentary addresses  are  stamped  with  the  fresh- 
ness and  richness  of  the  reminiscences  of  the  aged 
lawgiver,  with  a  freedom  in  expanding  historical 
incidents,  laws,  and,  above  all,  the  Decalogue, 
which  is  scarcely  conceivable  except  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  speaker  was  that  lawgiver  himself  .^^ 
The  Deuteronomic  Code  thus  enacted  was  a  devel- 
opment, not  as  the  Priestly  Code  had  been  on 
the  side  of  the  ritual,  but  considered  as  a  Code 
for  popular  guidance  in  civil  and  religious  mat- 
ters. The  enlargement,  which  we  here  find,  of 
the  simple  regulations  of  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant implies  no  longer  interval  and  no  greater 
change  in  the  condition  or  constitution  of  the 
people  than  is  provided  for  in  the  Biblical  nar- 
rative.   At  the  same  time,  the  fact  that  we  do 

13  F.  Delitzsch,  quoted  by  E.  C.  Bissell,  The  Pentateuch,  p.  265 
footn.  (N.  Y.,  1886). 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    25 

not  find  in  Deuteronomy  a  ritual  so  elaborate 
and  detailed  as  in  the  Priestly  Code  is  not  be- 
cause the  latter  is  the  further  development  of  a 
still  later  period,  when  ceremonies  were  multi- 
plied and  held  in  higher  esteem,  but  simply  be- 
cause the  Priestly  Code  was  a  professional  book 
especially  meant  for  priests  in  direct  charge  of 
the  altar,  and  Deuteronomy  a  popular  book  for 
the  guidance  of  the  Israelites  at  large  in  mat- 
ters more  immediately  within  their  province. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  monarchy,  the  Deu- 
teronomic  Law  alone  needed  to  be  re-enforced, 
inasmuch  as  the  divine  service,  chiefly  regulated 
by  the  Priestly  Code,  had  long  been  carried  out 
in  accordance  with  its  ritual  precepts.^*  After 
the  Exile,  on  the  contrary,  the  Priestly  Code 
was  of  paramount  importance  to  the  restored 
nation,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Temple, 
its  services,  and  all  things  connected  therewith 
had  been  swept  away  by  the  unprecedented 
calamity  from  which  Israel  had  just  been 
rescued. 

1*  The  passages  from  Isaias,  Amos,  Jeremias,  to  which  Critics 
triumphantly  appeal  as  disproving  the  existence  of  the  Priestly 
Code  in  the  time  of  those  prophets,  do  not  bear  this  out.  (Cf.  von 
Orelli,  and  other  commentators;  J.  Robertson,  The  Early  Religion 
of  Israel,  p.  448  sqq.  N.  Y.,  1892;  J.  Orr,  The  Problem  of  the 
Old  Test.,  p.  165  sqq.;  p.  824  sq.  N.  Y.,  1905;  W.  Smith,  The  Book 
of  Moses,  p.  211  sqq.;  p.  601  sq.). 


26    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

Such,  briefly  sketched,  is  the  other,  and  ob- 
viously most  rational,  manner  to  account  for  the 
differences  which  exist  between  the  three  sets 
of  Hebrew  legislation  embodied  in  our  Penta- 
teuch/^ Most  reasonable  it  is  to  regard  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  as  the  Constitution 
framed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Hebrew 
nation  by  the  liberator  of  Israel.  Most  reason- 
able it  is  to  admit  that  this  Constitution,  dis- 
tinctly religious  in  character,  was  soon  expanded 
into  a  ritual  Law  impregnated  with  Moses'  mem- 
ories of  Egyptian  outward  worsliip.  Most  rea- 
sonable, finally,  it  is,  to  think  that  before  dying, 
the  same  Moses  exhorted,  as  we  find  in  Deu- 
teronomy, the  people  whom  he  had  guided,  and 
whom  he  was  about  to  leave,  to  a  thorough 
faithfulness  in  the  service  of  the  true  God  and 
their  God.  And  all  this  naturally  agrees  with 
the  manner  in  which  the  literary  features  of  the 
Pentateuch  point  to  Moses  as  the  author  of  its 
contents. 

All  this  traverses,  it  is  true,  the  views  freely 
circulated  and  widely  accepted  in  Critical  cir- 
cles.    But  why  should  it  not  do  so?     Higher 

15  This  rational  explanation  is  in  direct  conformity  with 
Scriptural  statements  the  obvious  import  of  which  Critics  rule  out 
in  virtue  of  their  evolutionary  theories  of  Israel's  religion. 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    27 

Critics  maintain  that  all  Israel  was  not  enslaved 
in  Egypt,  and  was  not,  therefore,  delivered  by 
Moses.  But  was  there  ever  a  nation  willing 
falsely  to  trace  back  its  origin  to  such  a  degraded 
condition,  and  could  not  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  under  the  leadership  of  Moses  be  as  dis- 
tinctly and  as  faithfully  remembered  as  the  win- 
ning of  American  independence  under  the  lead- 
ership of  Washington,  or  the  liberation  of 
France  under  that  of  Joan  of  Arc?  They  assert 
that  the  Hebrews  owed  their  belief  in  only  one 
God  to  prophets  living  centuries  after  Moses, 
whereas  these  same  prophets  bear  distinct  wit- 
ness to  the  fact  that  such  belief  was  that  of  their 
nation  ever  since  God  freely  chose  it  as  His  own 
people/^  They  affirm  that  the  Deuteronomic 
Code  originated  in  the  closing  years  of  the  mon- 
archy, ignoring  all  the  while  that  this  same  Code 
contains  laws  the  obvious  import  of  which  makes 
against  that  late  date.  Thus,  Deuter.  xvii.  14, 15 
contemplates  the  Hebrew  monarchy  as  a  thing  of 
the  future,  and  lays  down  that  the  future  king 
should  not  be  a  foreign  born:  on  the  one  hand, 
this  enactment  is  unintelligible  on  the  part  of 
a  supposed  lawgiver  living  at  a  time  when  his 

16  Cf.  Amos  ii.  9  sqq.;  iii.  1  sqq.;  Osee  xi.  1;  xii.  9  (Heb.  verse 
10). 


28    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

nation  had  already  had  a  long  series  of  kings 
and  was  in  no  way  tempted  to  set  at  its  head 
a  foreigner,  seeing  that  for  centuries  the  royal 
succession  had  been  firmly  established  in  the  fam- 
ily of  David;  on  the  other  hand,  this  same  enact- 
ment is  most  intelligible  on  the  part  of  Moses 
who  naturally  anticipated  that  after  his  death 
the  Hebrews  would  desire  a  king  like  all  other 
nations,  and  no  less  naturally  forbade  the  elec- 
tion in  such  case  of  a  foreign  born,  fully  aware 
as  he  was  of  the  misfortunes  which  had  befallen 
Egypt  when  ruled  over  by  a  foreign  dynasty. 
Again,  Deuter.  xx.  16-18  and  Deuter.  xxv.  17-9 
decree  the  extermination  of  the  Chanaanites  and 
of  the  Amalekites  respectively:  now  to  refer  the 
framing  of  such  laws  to  the  closing  years  of  the 
monarchy  is  to  make  them  meaningless,  inas- 
much as  by  that  time  both  Chanaanites  and 
Amalekites  had  ceased  to  be;  whereas  to  ascribe 
them  to  the  time  of  Moses  is  most  natural,  since 
these  hostile  tribes  not  only  existed  then,  but 
had  to  be  done  away  with  for  the  very  reasons 
which  the  lawgiver  points  out.  With  regard  to 
the  Priestly  Writing,  the  views  which  obtain  in 
Critical  circles  are  likewise  untenable.  As  this 
Priestly  Writing  explicitly  refers  the  whole 
ceremonial  Law  to  Moses,  Critics  freely  charge 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    29 

its  supposed  late  authors  with  projecting  back 
into  Moses'  time  the  ritual  and  institutions  of 
their  own  age,  with  recasting  throughout  the 
documents  at  their  disposal  to  make  them  con- 
form with  their  late  religious  conceptions,  and 
the  same  Critics  never  suspect  that  they  them- 
selves are  open  to  a  precisely  similar  charge 
when  they  mutilate,  displace,  interpret  these 
same  documents  to  make  them  fit  with  evolution- 
ary theories  of  Israel's  laws  and  institutions  in 
their  own  day.  Critics  have  no  doubt  that  the 
said  Priestly  Writers  were  not  able  to  view  cor- 
rectly the  distant  past  history  of  their  race,  and 
they  are  not  aware  that  at  this  much  later  date 
they  themselves  can  hardly  be  better  able  to  view 
correctly  the  history  of  a  race  singularly  dif- 
ferent from  their  own.  Modern  Critics  assume 
that  the  laws  of  Israel  grew  like  those  of  other 
nations;  the  Priestly  Writing  knows  that  it  is 
not  so.  Hebrews  kings  did  not  make  laws,  but 
found  them  in  existence,  and  were  expected  to 
comply  with  them;  and  the  most  minute  enact- 
ments of  the  Priestly  Code,  in  particular,  are  so 
accurately  stamped  with  parallel  details  in 
Egyptian  worship  as  to  give  indication  of  their 
origin  in  Moses'  time.  It  will  always  look 
strange,  whatever  Modern  Critics  may  say  to 


30    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

the  contrary,  that  the  Priestly  Code,  if  framed 
after  the  Exile,  as  they  assert,  should  contain  a 
number  of  laws  which  were  without  a  motive, 
and  could  not  be  carried  out  after  the  Exile/'' 
To  date,  for  instance,  the  command  to  kill  the 
sacrifices  only  at  the  Tabernacle  (Lev. 
xvii.  1  sqq.)  from  that  late  period  in  Jewish 
history  is  passing  strange;  in  that  period  the 
Tabernacle  existed  no  longer,  and  the  appro- 
priate time  for  the  framing  of  the  law  in  ques- 
tion is  manifestly  the  forty  years'  Wandering 
in  the  Wilderness. 

Again,  had  Higher  Critics  carefully  weighed 
the  terms  of  the  three  Pentateuchal  Codes, 
viewed  in  their  right  order  of  time,  they  would 
never  have  claimed  that  the  Hebrew  legisla- 
tion varied  essentially  as  regards  the  cen- 
tralization of  worship  in  one  place,  or  that  only 
in  the  course  of  centuries  the  priestly  office  of 
offering  sacrifices  was  restricted  first  to  the  whole 
Levitical  tribe  and  next  to  the  sole  Levitical 
family  of  Aaron.  From  the  very  first,  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  evidently  refers  to  only  one 
place  of  national  worship,  when  in  general  terms 
it  bids  Israel  to  appear  three  times  a  year  before 

17  Cf.  H.  L.  Strack,  art.  Pentateuch,  in  SchaflF-Herzog,  Ency.  of 
Religious   Knowl.,   vol.   Ill,  p.   1794   sq.    (N.   Y.,   1887). 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    31 

Jehovah  (Exod.  xxiii.  17),  an  expression  which 
decidedly  points  to  a  centralization  of  the  wor- 
ship. In  the  next,  the  Priestly,  Code,  the  Tab- 
ernacle is  specified  as  this  regular  place  wher- 
ever it  may  be  set  up.  And  in  the  last,  the  Deu- 
teronomic.  Code,  it  is  simply  laid  down  that  this 
regular  place  shall  not  be  shifted  any  more,  but 
be  the  particular  spot  which  Jehovah  shall  Him- 
self designate  in  due  time.  The  same  absence 
of  discrepancy  exists  between  the  three  Codes 
in  question,  with  regard  to  the  Levitical  ministers 
of  the  altar.  In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  these 
ministers  are  not  mentioned  at  all,  for  the  ob- 
vious reason  that  Moses  had  not  yet  appointed 
the  Levites,  i.  e.  the  men  of  his  own  tribe,  for 
the  exclusive  service  of  the  sanctuary.  In  the 
Priestly  Code  these  Levites  are  regularly  or- 
ganized, the  simple  Levites  for  the  inferior  sen^- 
ices,  and  those  of  Aaronic  descent  for  the  priestly 
ministry  under  a  high  priest  after  the  pattern  of 
the  Egyptian  priesthood.  And  finally,  in  the 
Deuteronomic  Code,  these  simple  Levites  are 
naturally  regarded  as  already  set  apart  for  the 
divine  service,  and  no  less  naturally  recom- 
mended to  the  generosity  of  their  fellow- 
Hebrews,  for  the  provision  of  cities  and  lands  in 
their  own  behalf,  that  is  to  say  their  main  source 


32    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

of  income,  is  to  take  effect  only  after  the  settle- 
ment in  Chanaan. 

Finally,  Critics  think  it  strange,  if  Moses  is  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  this  work  should 
always  speak  of  him  in  the  third  person,  should 
contain  statements  indicative  of  a  later  author- 
ship than  his  time,  and  conclude  with  the  very 
account  of  his  death.  But  why  should  this  be 
considered  strange?  Such  pagan  writers  as 
Thucydides,  Xenophon,  Csesar,"  and  such 
sacred  authors  as  Isaias,  Osee,  Amos,  use  the 
third  person  when  speaking  of  themselves  in 
works  undoubtedly  their  own.  Moreover,  speak- 
ing of  oneself  in  the  third  person  was  common 
in  Egypt  in  Moses'  time.^^  Some  of  the  state- 
ments appealed  to  as  pointing  to  a  time  later 
than  Moses,  point  indeed  to  it.  But  why  should 
they  not  be  numbered  among  those  glosses 
which,  as  every  Scriptural  scholar  knows,  were 
inserted  into  the  sacred  text  long  after  the  com- 
position of  a  book  of  Holy  Writ?  Of  course, 
the  account  of  Moses'  death  at  the  end  of  Deu- 
teronomy is  not  from  his  own  pen.  But  why 
should  such  account  be  regarded  as  interfering 

18  Cf.  W.  Smith,  The   Book  of  Moses,  p.  662  sq.;  p.  666  sq. 
(London,  1868). 

19  Cf.  G.  Rawlinson,  in  "The  Pulpit  Commentary,"  Exodus,  voL 

I,    p.    XV. 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    33 

with  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  books  to 
which  it  is  appended?  Can  it  not  be  readily 
understood  as  an  addition  by  a  subsequent  au- 
thor who  wished  thereby  to  complete  the  record 
which  these  books  contain  of  Moses'  personal 
work  and  career?  Caesar's  Commentaries  on  the 
Gallic  War  were  indeed  completed  by  Hirtius, 
a  friend  of  his,  through  the  addition  of  an  eighth 
book,  but  nobody  dreams  of  rejecting  the  tra- 
ditional authorship  by  Caesar  of  the  seven  pre- 
ceding books  on  that  account. 

It  is  now  time  briefly  to  conclude.  In  the 
course  of  this  Lecture,  the  immense  labors  and 
the  great  ingenuity  of  numerous  workers  in  the 
field  of  Biblical  Criticism  have  not  been  called 
into  question.  Acquainted,  as  it  was  his  bounden 
duty  to  be  for  the  last  twenty-five  years,  with  the 
writings  of  such  Critics,  the  present  Lecturer  has 
had  many  an  opportunity  to  notice  and  wonder 
at  the  knowledge  of  linguistics,  the  depth  of  re- 
search, the  mastery  of  details,  etc.,  of  which  the 
works  referred  to  give  evidence.  He  would 
therefore  have  deemed  it  an  injustice  to  past 
generations  of  Critics,  and  also  to  his  present 
audience,  to  speak  disparagingly  of  the  ability 
and  industry  of  scholars  whose  views  he  did  not 
see  his  way  to  share.     It  was  his  plain  duty  to 


34    MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

take  into  account  the  elements  of  truth  included 
in  theories  which  he  felt  could  not  be  held  on 
scientific  grounds,  and  hence  he  has  readily- 
granted  to  his  opponents  that  certain  differences, 
Kterary  and  legislative,  existed  in  the  contents  of 
our  Pentateuch.  At  the  same  time,  he  has  argued, 
as  the  interest  of  truth  compelled  him  to  do,  that 
such  differences  with  regard  to  these  literary  and 
legislative  contents,  far  from  disproving,  dis- 
tinctly strengthen  the  traditional  position  con- 
cerning the  writings  and  mission  of  Moses,  the 
great  lawgiver  of  Israel.  Within  the  short  space 
of  time  at  his  disposal,  he  could  do  no  more  than 
to  examine  the  leading  positions  of  the  thorough- 
going advocates  of  Modern  Higher  Criticism, 
and  to  point  out  the  principal  general  reasons 
for  rejecting  them.  In  view  of  these  reasons, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  when  the  literary  contents 
of  the  Pentateuch  are  inquired  into,  they  are  seen 
to  be  compatible  with  the  traditional  authorship 
of  the  work.  There  is  likewise  no  doubt  that  the 
actual  development  of  Hebrew  legislation  in  the 
three  Codes  of  the  Pentateuch  is  rightly  ac- 
counted for,  not  by  the  views  of  it  which  are 
prevalent  in  Critical  circles,  but  by  the  traditional 
position  from  which  Critics  should  never  have 
departed.      The    particular    elements    of   truth 


MESSAGE  OF  MOSES  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM    35 

brought  out  by  the  literary  and  historical  investi- 
gation of  the  contents  of  the  Mosaic  writings  are 
thus  found  to  tally,  as  might  be  expected  they 
would,  with  the  general  truth  handed  down  by 
the  proverbially  tenacious  tradition  of  Jews  and 
Christians.  Great,  indeed,  was  the  message  it 
was  given  Moses  to  convey  to  Israel,  second  only 
it  was  to  the  message  imparted  by  the  Savior  of 
mankind:  ''The  Law  was  given  through  Moses, 
grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus  Christ." 
(John  i.  17.) 


PRIXTED   BY    BENZIGEB    BROTHERS,    NEW   YORK. 


OTHER   WORKS 
BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.     8vo,  net,  2.50. 

Part  I.  Biblical  Canonics.  Part  II.  Biblical  Textual  Criticism.  Part 
III.  Biblical  Hermeneutics.  Part  IV.  Biblical  Inspiration.  Facsimiles  of 
Manuscripts,  Inscriptions,  etc. 

General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.   Abridged  Edition.    8vo,  ;2^/,  1.50. 

Special    Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Old 
Testsunent. 

Part  I.     The  Historical  Books.     8vo,  net,  1.50. 
Part  II.   The  Didactic   Books   and   Prophetic  Writings. 
8vo,  net,  3.00. 

Outlines    of    New    Testament    History.      8vo, 

net,  1.50. 

"An  excellent  work — learned,  brief,  well-written,  and  interesting.  It  is 
especially  adapted  for  seminaries,  but  every  intelligent  Catholic  will  derive 
great  profit  from  its  perusal,  and  it  will  be  an  invaluable  aid  for  teachers 
in  colleges,  academies,  and  the  higher  classes  of  Christian  doctrine." 

— Messenger  of  the  Sacred  Heart. 

Outlines  of  Jewish  History,  from  Abraham  to 
Our  Loid.     8vo,  net,  1.50. 

The  object  of  this  volume  is  to  present  to  the  modern  eye,  in  a  vivid  and 
accurate  manner,  the  picture  of  the  civilization  which  the  Jews  attained  in  the 
various  periods  of  their  national  existence  and  to  sketch  briefly  the  history  of 
the  true  religion  from  Abraham  to  the  coming  of  Our  Lord. 

Christ's  Teaching  Concerning  Divorce  in  the 
New  Testament 

An  Exegetical  Study.      Dedicated  by  Permission  to  His 
Eminence  Cardinal  Farley.     8vo,  cloth,  net,  1.50. 

The  present  exegetical  study  was  undertaken  with  the  "intimate  convic- 
tion that  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  earliest  documents  of  Christianitj 
would  supply  a  clear  vindication  of  the  indissoluble  nature  of  Christian 
marriage  as  distinctly  maintained  by  the  living  tradition  of  the  Roman 
Church  and  solemnly  proclaimed  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 


ZJ'O *  =: 

PAMPHIET  BINDER 

.  Syracuse,  N.   Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


'rl'ill"-<^^0 


The 


::::or:"°^«-™^e™.,,,. 


Princ 


,^ton  Theological 


"^,7-Speer  Library 


^    1012  00012  1642 


m 


t 

.»r.- 


"Iiijii^. 


v^^p^r 


/^^^.LJ* 


":.^^ 


0 


